This submission is bizarre.
Even for trolling standards, the "news" is unbelievably silly.

Any communication online (and offline for that matter) will be used to exchange illegal stuff.

You can replace "Telegram" with "Email", "Google Drive", "Usenet" - or even "FedEx" and "Telephone".

Any of those things are used for much worse than pirating content: *terrorists and rapists* use them for nefarious goals. So what?

I don't hear "Telephone" getting the blame. Nor I hear Gmail being asked to pay more attention to the content of those emails. You don't expect the provider of such services to police private communications.

What's the point of singling out Telegram, of all things?

(In case this is Ivan following on today's directive "Find something to attack Telegram", then it's a very lazy attempt. Can do better, Ivan.)

Your ideas are intriguing to me
and I wish to subscribe to your vodka supply.

In typical conditions it's very resilient because of the nature of the service and its size.

But because of the same reasons it can prove extremely fragile under a number of special circumstances that can trigger a downward spiral difficult to stop.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

that's possible.
it's also possible that they are being careful using a stat that is still fluctuating and may change in the future against them.

you are showing insensitivity towards corporations, that after all are people too.

"right" is determined by the social/historical context.

If internet is the key to primary services, education, decent life - then yes, it obviously becomes a right worth defending.

Also, such rights have squat to do on whether privates are involved. Baby food is sold in supermarkets - yet we think kids have a right not starve.

Also, while on earth the "actual speed" of each bit is actually irrelevant as long as at or around the speed of light, FTL information would be a game changer in space, no matter the bandwidth.
(Of course, physics and all that, not a possibility as far as we know)

How does this relate with the opportunity, or not, to have a debate on the overall electoral system? No irony, just an open question.
The sitting party, either one, is sitting because it has been voted.
Am I missing your point entirely?

I hear you,
but the the first thing you want is a mainstream debate on IF, and HOW, the electoral system can be made better.

[Mainstream means: people get stuff about it on their facebook feed, see the topic on the opinion page of their favorite newspaper, hear about it on TV etc. This is currently not happening. ]

There are probably ways to make the electoral system better - and there are almost certainly ways to screw up royally.

Let's face it: With all the faults you may find, the current system has historically served the U.S. people well. Some reforms are probably a good idea, but we better come up with something really, really smart.

be as it may, one of the two is going to be president.
not one of the four, or six.

there are ways to reform the system, but voting for someone who is sure to lose is not one of the best ways. you risk effectively favoring the candidate you dislike the most.

God is quite an elusive idea - but I do like very much the idea of loving your neighbor!

But if really boils down to that, why carrying forward all the baggage that can be summarized in that one wise and precious sentence?
Why loading yourself with the need to explain away everything else, when you could just choose any modern philosopher (say, Peter Singer) that says essentially the same thing, but without the references to goats, stoning and the like? It appears on the face of it an enormous effort and rather a waste of energy. What am I missing?

thanks for your answer, I mean it!
one thing I don't understand is the following - maybe you can help (no irony)

the new testament is not getting into details on topics that many Christians seem to care about. topics like human sexuality, origins of the cosmos, laws of nature, and more.
when many Christians are looking for answers on such topics, they tend to refer to the old testament. however, when such answers appear unpalatable in the old testament (see e. g. stoning), they use the argument that the new testament has supeseded those things.

is it a fair reading? how do you know when something is superseded and when?

atheism does not require believing anything of the sort. why you say that?